Cases 1 - 10 of 10
SMITH v. BEASLEY
as 7:2023cv00061
Plaintiff:
ROY MANDELL SMITH
Defendant:
Lt AARON KIRK, Supervisor KEVIN CONNOLLY, NED M MIKULA and others
Respondent:
Warden JACOB BEASLEY
Cause Of Action: 28 U.S.C. § 2254 Petition for Writ of Habeas Corpus (State)
STOKES v. STATE OF GEORGIA et al
as 7:2019cv00165
Defendant:
BETH C GREENE, JONI B PARKER, ELIZABETH CHESSER CLEVELAND and others
Plaintiff:
DESMOND LAMONT STOKES
Cause Of Action: 42 U.S.C. § 1983
Christian Parker v. State of Florida
as 17-10843
Petitioner - Appellant:
CHRISTIAN B. PARKER
Respondent - Appellee:
STATE OF FLORIDA
DENSON v. PARKER et al
as 7:2015cv00190
Plaintiff:
RANDY DENSON
Defendant:
JONI B PARKER and SHAY HATCHER
Cause Of Action: 42 U.S.C. § 1983
Parker v. State of Florida
as 0:2013cv61413
Plaintiff:
Christian B. Parker
Defendant:
State of Florida
Cause Of Action: 28 U.S.C. § 2254 Petition for Writ of Habeas Corpus (State)
Moliere Dimanche, Jr. v. S. Bearden, et al
as 13-10617
Plaintiff - Appellant:
MOLIERE DIMANCHE, JR.
Defendant - Appellee:
S. BEARDEN, Classification Supervisor, CONNICE L. WEST, Assistant Warden, WARDEN and others
DENSON v. PARKER et al
as 7:2012cv00075
Plaintiff:
RANDY DENSON
Defendant:
JONI B PARKER and ELIZABETH C CLEVELAND
Cause Of Action: 42 U.S.C. § 1983
DIMANCHE v. JOHNSON et al
as 4:2012cv00267
Plaintiff:
MOLIERE DIMANCHE, JR
Defendant:
P K JOHNSON, S BEARDEN, TAMERA POYNTER and others
Cause Of Action: 42 U.S.C. § 1983
Nathan Parker v. Secretary, DOC, et al
as 10-11956
Petitioner - Appellant:
NATHAN B. PARKER
Respondent - Appellee:
SECRETARY DEPARTMENT OF CORRECTIONS and FLORIDA ATTORNEY GENERAL
Parker v. Secretary, Department of Corrections et al
as 5:2007cv00499
Petitioner:
Nathan B. Parker
Respondent:
Secretary, Department of Corrections and Florida Attorney General
Cause Of Action: 28 U.S.C. § 2254 Petition for Writ of Habeas Corpus (State)
Disclaimer: Justia Dockets & Filings provides public litigation records from the federal appellate and district courts. These filings and docket sheets should not be considered findings of fact or liability, nor do they necessarily reflect the view of Justia.
